Pages

Friday, July 6, 2012

Following the hearing relating to Sayedee, the chairman started the afternoon session by saying that in relation to the application seeking to ask a question to the investigation officer (PW28) on the book – ‘Associates of Pakistan Army 1971’ that was filed yesterday, the chairman said that would be kept on the record.

Regarding the application for review of the order dated 10th April 2012 seeking to allow prosecution to exhibit new documents, the chairman said that they will later on fix the date for hearing of the application.

In relation to the recall application relating to 3 witnesses (Manik Poshari, Ruhul Amin and Mahbubul Alam Hawlader), the chairman asked who will bear the cost of recalling these witnesses?

Mizanul Islam, the defence counsel said, my lord, ‘I think Tribunal has the capacity to bear the cost. Still if the Tribunal directs us to bear the cost then we will do it’.

Haider Ali came to the dais and said that all witnesses have been cross examined by the defence for more than a single day, then why should they be called again.

Mizanul Islam said, ‘My lord, how long they were crossed is not matter here. For the interest of justice they should be recalled. Time is not fact here.’

The chairman said that the order on this application would be heard on Sunday, along with the order relating to the application concerning a review of the order dealing with the 15 witness statement.

Defence: On 26.04.2011, you have seized Daily Janakantha dated 13.02.2002 and Daily New age dated 16.03.12 under exhibit no.18 and taken under custody in exhibit no. 19.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Pages of the newspaper was exhibited on 49, 49(1), 49(2) 49(3), 49(4).

Witness: Yes.

Defence: There was an heading in the Daily jnakantha that “taleban sesh hole ki hobe Americar biruddhe juddha cholte thakbe, Sayedee” (“war against U.S.A will be continued, it does not matter that Taleban was finished, Saydee”) but the fact is, this headline has no relation with its main body.

Witness: Yes, this was not at the story of that headline.

Defence: Did you ask this question to those persons who were present at that meeting as per the description of the report of Daily Janakantha?

Witness: No.

Defence: Who was the reporter of that news?

Witness: Name of the reporter is not mentioned, only it is mentioned as staff reporter.

Defence: Did you go at the office of Daily janakantha ?

Witness: No, I did not.

Defence: This report has no relation with the allegation of Mr.Sayedee.

Witness: Yes, it has no relation.

Defence: Then why you add it with the investigation report?

Witness: Before 1971 the accused Sayedde had relation with Gholam Azam and others, then in 1971 with their direction and conspiracy by forming shanti committee, Razakaar Force committed genocide, looting, arson, rape and others crime against humanity. That is why I have submitted a sample of their crime.

Defence: In 1971, America opposed the Libaration of East Pakistan.

Witness: It was not in my record.

Prosecution: My lord, it is a matter of International politics.

Defence: This matter is clearly exhibited in Movie file which you showed before the Tribunal.

Mizanul islam: At the last period of Liberation war a proposal was submitted on security council of United nation by the U.S.A on behalf of Pakistan to stop the war.

Witness: Yes. Witness: Yes.

Then again Haider Ali raised objection

Justice Zaheer: Prosecution you cannot raise objection because you have produced the report that “war will be continued against the U.S.A”

Haider ali: My Lord, questions which will affect our foreign policy.

Justice Nizam: Incidents in 1971 will not affect the foreign policy.

Justice Zaheer: You have no right to suggest the Tribunal. It is your duty not to submit such materials which affect our foreign policy.

Justice Nizam: Till now nothing has been done which will affect foreign policy. Just history of the Bangladesh has been told.

Justice Zaheer: [To prosecutor] it was your duty not to submit such documents if you had any concern.

Defence: My lord, I will not ask any question which will affect the foreign policy. I am very much conscious about this. But I will not expect the Prosecution to object to any question that may affect to the Accused.

Defence: America proposed for undivided Pakistan and for not giving any place to the Bangladesh at the World map.

Witness: What was their motive I do not know but they did it to stop the War and for establishing peace.

Defence: In 1971, U.S.A sent 7th fleet to Pakistan.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Against the proposal of U.S.A to stop the war was opposed by the Soviet Union by using its veto power.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Then foreign minister Julfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan who represented Pakistan at the united nation had torn all the documents at that assembly.

Defence: Julfikar Ali Bhutto was the main planner of the Operation search light.

Witness: Yes.

There was an argument between the prosecutor and the judges about the defence asking questions relating to Bhutto. Haider Ali, the prosecutor, said that this tribunal should not allow these type of questions. This may affect our relationship with USA.

Justice Zahir asked the prosecution why he has submitted this video. ‘This shows Bhutto’s heroism. We are trying war crimes. We are not here to see Bhutto’s heroism. Why you submitted these irrelevant documents?’

Haider Ali said you are not doing the right thing. It is not good. I will later on explain the relevance of this VCD.

Zahir responded, Ok, get ready to answer these queries at that time.

Defence: Did you tell whether there is any thing in that report which proves that Ghulam Azam has relation with Delwer Hossian Sayedee?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you collect any documents in this regard that Mr. Sayedee had attended any meeting before 1975?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you collect any information that Delwer Hossain Sayedee had established relation with Jamaat-i-islam before 1975?

Witness: No.

Defence: There is no report regarding Razakaar and Shanti bahini in his report of Daily Janakantha.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: In exhibit no. 49(3), 49(4) Daily new age dated 16.03.2004 was exhibited, did you know who was the reporter of that news.

Witness: Reporter name is not mentioned, only staff correspondence is mentioned here.

Defence: Did you communicate with Bangladesh Biman for justifying the news of that newspaper?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you go to the National Flag centre to collect those letter mentioned at this report.

Witness: No.

Defence: You did not go to the national flag centre to justify those letters.

Witness: Yes, I did not go.

Defence: In this report there was statement of then Wing commander Khalid Musahsarraf Hossain. My question is did you communicate with him?

Witness: No.

Defence: Did you communicate with the Immigration Department of U.S.A.

Witness: No.

Defence: This report is unaccepted.

Witness: It is not true.

Defence: You did not go anywhere to justify this news, that’s mean without any justification you submitted these documents before the Tribunal.

Witness: It is not true.

Defence: Exhibit 49(3) (4) has no relevancy and complicity with this case.

Witness: Yes

Then Prosecutor Haider Ali stood up and said relevancy and complicity is not same.

Defence: My Lord, I am just helpless by seeing the behaviour of prosecution. They can raise objection with due process but they are not allowed to create any hindrance.

Haider ali: My lord, it is nothing but a misleading question because he asked two question at a time.

Defence: Yes, I can do it as I have this jurisdiction to ask two questions at a time.

Then I.O said that “In case of “relevancy” I have said yes, have no relevancy and in case of “complicity” I have said it is not true.

Defence: You have seized total 10 newspaper of Daily Janakantha dated 14.12.2000 and 18.12.2000 to 26.12.2000 under exhibit no.20.

Witness: Yes.

Defence: Who was the reporter of 14.12.2000 of Daily Jnakantha?

Witness: Hs name is Fakhre Alam.

Defence: In this report a person is marked as Razakkar. My question is whether Delwer Hossain Saydee had relation with that person.

Witness: No, I did not get any information.

Defence: A name of a place is mentioned in this report. My question is whether Mr. Sayedee went to that place or not?

About Me

This is a personal blog, and any views are solely mine. I am a Bangladesh based journalist who has since August 2010 worked as Editor, Special Reports for the Bangladesh national newspaper, New Age (see my other blog on the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh: http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com) Prior to working at New Age, between March and September 2010, I worked as a senior editor and reporter at the news website, bdnews24.com and before that I spent seven months at the Bangladesh newspaper, the Daily Star, setting up a small investigations unit. Between 2000 and 2009, I was the Executive Director of the Centre for Corporate Accountability, a UK based not-for-profit organisation concerned with workplace safety. Before that, I worked as a Television journalist and producer for about seven years working mainly for the television production company, Twenty Twenty Television in London. In 1995, I was involved in making the Royal Television Society award winning Channel Four documentary, the 'War Crimes File', a film about war crimes allegedly committed by three men during the 1971 War of Indpendence. I have lived in Dhaka since 2003.